A safe-class object in the appearance of a shampoo bottle which, when squeezed by hand, will produce a viscous fluid reminiscent of shampoo from the nozzle. The properties of the fluid will vary depending on the current thoughts of the user. It can physically include what the user is thinking of in the composition of the liquid, it can elaborate on vague ideas or abstract concepts if it cannot produce the fluid as-is, or it can employ a combination of both when producing the fluid. The only constant between fluids is the viscosity. Wearing a layer of insulation (gloves or hazmat equipment) will not affect results, however, squeezing the bottle mechanically and/or remotely will yield no results.

Examples:

Thinking of "gold flakes", the bottle will produce a fluid that has flakes of gold suspended in the fluid.

Thinking of "heat", the fluid produced may be spicy. Alternatively, a fluid that is physically hotter than room temperature may be produced.

Thinking of "redshift", the fluid produced may move away from observers at great speed, even if a chemical analysis can't explain why.

Other examples are available but will be omitted to keep the idea short. However, they can be provided on request. Further detail can also be provided on request. Criticism is encouraged.

Hmm. Right now this is a thing that does a thing, more specifically, a thing that creates more minorly anomalous things. Typically with an object like this, the narrative tension comes from an escalation in objects being created. How do you plan on escalating events in this article?

Naturally, the complexity of the things made would increase with time in an attempt to push the boundaries of what can be created without accidentally going overboard and causing disaster. It would likely start with simple requests that are easily conceptualised by the brain, or something tangible that most people are familiar with. As experiments proceed, the nature of what is being created will become increasingly abstract and difficult to imagine.

Test subjects may lie about what they're being told to create which could end brilliantly or terribly, depending on the specifics of the experiment. Hopefully, these would help to build tension by making the reader more aware that things can go horribly wrong or horribly right, ideally keeping them on their toes. In conjunction with even simple experiments where the user is to create something from a vague concept going wrong or right, I believe this would keep the reader's attention.

An ideal endpoint would be attempting to, successfully or otherwise, create things relating to incredibly complex ideas such as (but not limited to) quantum mechanics, as well as interactions with other SCPs or SCP byproducts. These may prompt increased security protocols to be put in place to prevent misuse with disastrous consequences.

I would be lying if I said SCP 294 had no inspiration regarding my idea, but I'd also be lying if I said I haven't made any attempt to make it unique to 294. 294 is very easy to use: You type words in and you get what you ask for, always in the liquid form - or molten form if applicable - of what was asked for. If two subjects use 294 with the same request, it will always produce the same results. The "Psychic Shampoo" isn't nearly as reliable. If two subjects use it with the same request, it's very likely two different results will occur because not everybody thinks in the same way.

Going back to my "gold" example for a moment: If you request "gold" from 294, you will receive a cup of molten gold every time with the same properties. If you request "gold" from the shampoo, you could receive:

Fluid with gold flakes inside.

Fluid just dyed gold.

Fluid containing urine.

…and other potentially unexpected results, because as I said: not everyone thinks in the same way, consciously or subconsciously. Rather than interpreting digital inputs, it has to interpret thoughts, which aren't always reliable. If you were to request "magic" from 294, it might not be able to produce anything, and if it did it would always be the same. If you were to request "magic" from the shampoo, the fluid might float, might glow or might cause whoever it touches to start shooting lightning from their hands while breathing fire, fluently chanting in ancient languages.

tldr: both SCPs will interpret requests with a different process. When you change the process, you change the result, which adds variety and uncertainty to each experiment and use of the SCP.